Originally Posted by
OKC Guy
I suggest you start over where the topic started. My take is on a ratio basis the burbs pay more than urban. And yes Peake and costs are exactly the topic we had.
Refresher. A poster said we could unload 2/3rds of OKC. I said if we do then you do not have Peake and all the same projects because of the loss of tax dollars. I said the cost per square mile of expenses is less than taxes taken on a ratio basis.
Those burbs pay into MAPS and projects. I even said its normal and that I was not against projects. The cost of current downtown would not be supported if you sold 2/3rds of OKC. That was the discussion.
Another example, If we took a 2 square mile area including Paycom and Farmers and all those new fancy apartments/houses and figured out how much taxes they paid then added in how much roads/police/fire/water cost - the ratio of costs to taxes paid is going to show x. Do the same for 2 square miles in downtown you have a ton of MAPS likely at least $1billion. Yes, they take in more taxes from business but the cost ratio is going to show expenses higher as a ratio to taxes. So the lower expense/tax ratio in burbs means more burb tax money (as a ratio) goes to help downtown. And thats fine its how cities all work. So to cut out 2/3rds of land area means a loss of revenue to help support downtown. I am actually ok with the downtown projects (all but streetcar) so thats not the discussion. A poster said get rid of 2/3rds and downtown has more money to spend. I say you have less.
Bookmarks